Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

Are We Still Capable Of Getting A <1c Cet Month?


Anti-Mild

Are we still capable of getting a <1c CET month?  

58 members have voted

  1. 1. Below 1c possible? Yes or No?

    • Yes
      46
    • No
      12


Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. It is possible to make many different 'views' from the same dataset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
With regard to an inverse being true (apart from being a logical fallacy on my part - as I'm sure you are aware inverses are often not true, have you ever tried to unboil an egg and grow a chicken?) Are corrections being made to ensure that any cooling factors are mitigated? For instance flattening a big mound reduces surface area of insolation which can happen in road building exercises. Reduced surface area means less stored heating (I think) in the same way orographic forcing is, in part, down to a greater surface area in the same area of land. I've looked for papers on land surface area and local weather, and I can't find any. This is why I was vague, and I cannot follow the argument through. I would still argue that land surface area is a significant contributer to weather. I was under the impression that the model view of the weather does not account for density of surface area. I could be (and probably am) wrong.

I am absolutely sure there are missing corrections. Whether they are significant both in a chi-squared analysis, or indeed, in an absolute sense is, I think, the point. Are you really going to correct temperature for a station when the known effect is 0.000000000000001C? I think it's unlikely. There is always the case to presume, I think, that there could indeed be corrections whether warmer, or cooler, that might be significant. I guess the question is: what is the degree of significance?

I think, on my understanding that the CET is the mean of only a very few stations, that the mean is too coarse. This is, of course, a matter of opinion. Given the size of the UK I think that your contention is a reasonable one, and probably, for the disinterested, or casual reader, it is certainly enough. Perhaps that's the reason the CET series exists. I do not think, however, that your contention is enough for those with a more vivid interest in UK climate and it's subsequent analysis. I'll concede that this, then, becomes a matter of use, and nothing else.

There is nothing to suggest this because nobody has looked? I think that the atmosphere is sufficiently complex enough to have an overall warming trend, but to have more local effects such as cooling. This is my opinion (and belief) and I have no evidence to back this; although I'm looking.

Yes, apolgies. My point, though, however ineloquently put, is that the CET is only of use for long term and significant analysis. Synoptic arguments (which are both temporal and spacial) to conclude a future CET seems at the very least spurious, to me, on this basis. The CET, by definition, is a mean. My point was that synoptic arguments are irrelevant on that basis; the CET does not, in and of itself, contain any synoptic detail; it does contain long term synoptic variability, though.

No argument there.

The chances are, as you say, that the whole sample will be self-similar at all scales. This view, however, does result from the flattening of nosie; increasing the sample frequency introduces more 'noise' and I contend that on a number of occasions that the noise contributes in some significant fashion. I'd still like to do the exercise, though. Has anyone got the daily CET for the last 100 years that I can borrow? I'll publish the results here

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. It is possible to make many different 'views' from the same dataset.

Wilson, in paragrpah order.

1 - CET corrections. I think you're right, there are probably other potential corrections, and it's not completely outwith possibility that a major driving force is being missed, however it's highly unlikely. CET is the longest established longitudinal set of met data in the world, and is probably, therefore, highly scrutinised, and also used in paired analyses. My suspicion would have to be that if there was something being missed that is / was significant, someone would have called it by now. I think your final conclusion is therfore on the money; they're there but not significant c.f. the accuracy of the available instrumentation.

2 - The mean is coarse, hence my previous comment about grid density; the various CET data sets use no more than 2-4 stations; I think Hadley uses just two. You'll do well to find any UK stations cooling across, particularly, the last twenty years of marked warming. I attribute the warming in our climate to two main forces; slightly warmer SSTs providing an overall warming (irrespective of airmass), and increased nocturnal cloud cover, particularly in winter. it would not matter where you are / were in the UK, these factors would both prevail to some extent, not least because being an island it is impossible to escape the maritime influence on climate. There are others on here who will argue for changing synoptics as the driver (I tend to the view that these are just secondary consequences of changes in the overall thermal flux, though, for sure, there is a feedback at the very least). Even if this were the case, my point about the size of the UK remains. Most systems impacting the UK are the size of the UK or larger, therfore any change in synoptics effects us all, and the natire of the surface is not such that the impact of the change varies e.g. one location is warmer whilst another is cooler.

3 - The noise argument is correct, and to be fair one that various of us on here do raise on occasion. You are clearly statistically aware, but there are one or two people on here, let's call them say, pluking a name at random, Daniel, who alight on each and every piece of cold data as evidence of an impending Ice Age, and at the very least use it to underscore a comment to the effect of "so what do the GW warming community have to say about that then". Well usually two things, in fact: first, the community tends to be arguing from data NOT from a prejudiced view that warming is occurring irrespective of any facts; and secondly, outliers are just that, outliers. In any AVERAGE trend there will always be individual instances of data that fall above or below the line. What becomes compelling for any trend is the tendency for data to fall disproportionately one side of that line or the other. As you suggest, shortening the period of any average, down towards point data, introduces ever more volatility. It is interesting though to look at the daily updates to the Hadley plot on the UKMO Hadley site, and to just do a visual check on the current year's data against the historic mid point and the top and bottom five centiles. For a few years now it has invaribly been the case that the current data spend more time above par than it does below, and that when it threatens the "tails" above and below the mean it does so on the top side far more often than it does the bottom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent

SF, I would continue to argue but I think we've reached a joint opinion, with only very minor niggles left to cogitate. One remaining thing, though, I hope you do not lump me in with people who come to the forums with, what I can only describe as, a 'fringe' opinion.

Edited by Wilson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
SF, I would continue to argue but I think we've reached a joint opinion, with only very minor niggles left to cogitate. One remaining thing, though, I hope you do not lump me in with people who come to the forums with, what I can only describe as, a 'fringe' opinion.

Far from it.

Hang on, you mean there are people on here with minority views that cannot be substantiated by any fact other than "faction" that comes from sites like, say, "Ice Age Now", and "conspriacies R us"?

Edited by Stratos Ferric
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Norfolk
  • Location: Norfolk
I certainly agree there. There is one glimmer for those who hang desperately to any hope for cold winters, and that is a sudden correction in the macro or meso scale system.

My own view is that whilst possible, this is unlikely; and further that even if it were to occur, it might still be a short term downwards blip. With dramatic warming at the pole we might get to a point where the rate of change is simply too great for any localised cooling to buck the trend for long, irrespective of what happens to the THC. The NAD keeps the UK anomalously warm in winter, but only matters so long as air to our north is much much colder.

That, of course, is just my opinion. The fact is that we're into the unknown and, for now, unknowable.

I agree, unlikely but possible.

My only thought about the longer term would be what effect would a shut or slowdown have on the transfer of heat to the poles? Would we get an incredibly hot tropics and a much colder northern region? Would this in itself provide the impetus for some sort of self-correction? Certainly the onset of anything like this drastic a change would force governments and industry to act, but could they act in time? In a way, despite being an intense cold lover I would rather have the world accept it must change its ways before we get such confusing months which will only serve to obfuscate the GW argument. Once we are on the right path, then cover that path in ice and snow and buy me some sumptuous fur boots!

Edited by snowmaiden
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
I agree, unlikely but possible.

My only thought about the longer term would be what effect would a shut or slowdown have on the transfer of heat to the poles? Would we get an incredibly hot tropics and a much colder northern region? Would this in itself provide the impetus for some sort of self-correction? Certainly the onset of anything like this drastic a change would force governments and industry to act, but could they act in time? In a way, despite being an intense cold lover I would rather have the world accept it must change its ways before we get such confusing months which will only serve to obfuscate the GW argument. Once we are on the right path, then cover that path in ice and snow and buy me some sumptuous fur boots!

The simple theory would be that with a slacker thermal gradient the mean flow across the thermal gradient (which drives the jet) would slow. In practice I suspect it's far less straightforward. A slower jet might increase blocking, but with warmer poles this certainly doesn't necessarily equate to a colder UK. A slower NAD has the same effect, but if oceans overall are warmer then this will net out less negatively for the UK surface temps.

A warmer ocean, and warmer air, will increase evaporation, putting more energy into the air, so whilst there's a weaker jet the surface may develop more vigorously, so again, these contrasting drivers might just net out towards neutral.

There's a lot of inertia in the ocean system though. If the world stopped spinning tomorrow, the oceans would continue to flow for quite a long time. That inertia translates into the atmosphere too therefore. That's one reason why even taking preventative action now wouldn't have any dramatic impact on direction of change (alwayts assuming there are links á la GW anyway) on the ground for quite some time. The other unknown, irrespective of the forgoing, is whether changes would continue to be relatively steady, or whether we might suddenly reach a catastrophic tipping point. The sudden change scenario is the really scary one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
The fact is that we're into the unknown and, for now, unknowable.
I agree.

***************

Consider the partitions of a number. This sounds horrendous, but really it's the number of ways to write a whole number as a sum of other whole numbers. Consider 5. This can be 'partitioned' 7 ways:

1+1+1+1+1

2+1+1+1

2+2+1

3+1+1

3+2

4+1

5

We can say that 5's parition is 7; mathematical this can be called p, so p(5)=7 (partition of 5 equals 7)

Easy right. Now we can form a hypothesis on this basis; we can look to the past for instance; in this example we'll look at the partitions for the whole numbers leading to 5

p(1) = 1

p(2) = 2

p(3) = 3

p(4) = 5

p(5) = 7

We can see, easily, that this forms a sequence of prime numbers. We now have a workable hypothesis. Let's go for a short-term prediction. Let's look at p(6) Well, p(6)=11 so this confirms our hypothesis.

It is unfortunate then that when we try p(7) it turns out to be 15, which is not a prime number and our little conjecture fails miserably.

*********

We can, and do, look into the past and see patterns emerge and correlate them to what we expect the future to hold. This works for the very near future, but as we push further and further out all our conjectures increasingly become less reasoned conjecture, and more like guesswork.

Edited by Wilson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Thame, Oxfordshire
  • Location: Thame, Oxfordshire
The simple theory would be that with a slacker thermal gradient the mean flow across the thermal gradient (which drives the jet) would slow. In practice I suspect it's far less straightforward. A slower jet might increase blocking, but with warmer poles this certainly doesn't necessarily equate to a colder UK. A slower NAD has the same effect, but if oceans overall are warmer then this will net out less negatively for the UK surface temps.

A warmer ocean, and warmer air, will increase evaporation, putting more energy into the air, so whilst there's a weaker jet the surface may develop more vigorously, so again, these contrasting drivers might just net out towards neutral.

There's a lot of inertia in the ocean system though. If the world stopped spinning tomorrow, the oceans would continue to flow for quite a long time. That inertia translates into the atmosphere too therefore. That's one reason why even taking preventative action now wouldn't have any dramatic impact on direction of change (alwayts assuming there are links á la GW anyway) on the ground for quite some time. The other unknown, irrespective of the forgoing, is whether changes would continue to be relatively steady, or whether we might suddenly reach a catastrophic tipping point. The sudden change scenario is the really scary one.

There is a lot of talk about tipping points, positive feedbacks and runaway this and that.The plain fact is that negative feedbacks must predominate or we wouldn't be where we are today.That's not to say though that a sudden change would not have dramatic consequences on the way of life of some fragile civilisations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
There is a lot of talk about tipping points, positive feedbacks and runaway this and that.The plain fact is that negative feedbacks must predominate or we wouldn't be where we are today.That's not to say though that a sudden change would not have dramatic consequences on the way of life of some fragile civilisations.

Not sure that would definitely follow Mr S. In a quasi-stable system it might just appear that negative feedbacks predominate (in fact, in a quasi stable system - like the one that has existed until now, if indeed there has been a change - the feedbacks must balance, otherwise we'd have been endlessly cooling or warming). Until now, in the measured record, there hasn't even been a situation where we've suspected forcing of the system to introduce a new equilibrium. I think the real risk in the whole GW debate, and viewed most definitely from a risk mgmt perspective by the way, is that we just don't know what might happen, but that there's a fairly big downside. Hence why, particularly given the inertia I referred to previously, I tend to favour doing something proactive now rather than waiting until we have absolutely incontrovertible evidence one way or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Winchester
  • Location: Winchester
There is a lot of talk about tipping points, positive feedbacks and runaway this and that.The plain fact is that negative feedbacks must predominate or we wouldn't be where we are today.That's not to say though that a sudden change would not have dramatic consequences on the way of life of some fragile civilisations.

isn't the problem that it just looks like that most of the time because the climate sytems show hysteresis? Things move steadily with negative feedbacks limiting the speed of change until a threshold is reached.. after that change accelerates and even if the driver is removed the climate doesn't return to its original state..

(link for relates to the THC but probably applies to many other climate systems.. arctic sea ice perhaps?)

http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309074347/htm...053949960093001

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
isn't the problem that it just looks like that most of the time because the climate sytems show hysteresis? Things move steadily with negative feedbacks limiting the speed of change until a threshold is reached.. after that change accelerates and even if the driver is removed the climate doesn't return to its original state..

(link for relates to the THC but probably applies to many other climate systems.. arctic sea ice perhaps?)

http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309074347/htm...053949960093001

The climate behaves like a strange attractor which is perfectly in line with what you are describing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Coalpit Heath, South Gloucestershire
  • Location: Coalpit Heath, South Gloucestershire

Yes, I'm sure we can still get a <1c month and the sooner the better! Can't stand stuff like we had in August.

I suppose if I search hard enough there is something on the site about how the CETs have been this year. Apart from a hot August, I can't see any evidence of increasing temperatures this year.

I would say that this is more evidence of the heat-up having peaked a couple of years ago, but that sort of thing tends to get me in trouble!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
Yes, I'm sure we can still get a <1c month and the sooner the better! Can't stand stuff like we had in August.

I suppose if I search hard enough there is something on the site about how the CETs have been this year. Apart from a hot August, I can't see any evidence of increasing temperatures this year.

I would say that this is more evidence of the heat-up having peaked a couple of years ago, but that sort of thing tends to get me in trouble!

And so will quoting August too!! :)

BFTP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Coalpit Heath, South Gloucestershire
  • Location: Coalpit Heath, South Gloucestershire
And so will quoting August too!! :)

BFTP

:) oh, dear! For August, read July! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Norton, Stockton-on-Tees
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and cold in winter, warm and sunny in summer
  • Location: Norton, Stockton-on-Tees
:) oh, dear! For August, read July! :)

What-a mistake-a to make-a!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
:) oh, dear! For August, read July! :)

It's OK buddy I certainly know what was meant, just thought I'd rectify it with humour. Yep it was too hot for me too I can handle it abroad in sunnier/hotter climes but here...too much for me.

BFTP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Thame, Oxfordshire
  • Location: Thame, Oxfordshire
Not sure that would definitely follow Mr S. In a quasi-stable system it might just appear that negative feedbacks predominate (in fact, in a quasi stable system - like the one that has existed until now, if indeed there has been a change - the feedbacks must balance, otherwise we'd have been endlessly cooling or warming). Until now, in the measured record, there hasn't even been a situation where we've suspected forcing of the system to introduce a new equilibrium. I think the real risk in the whole GW debate, and viewed most definitely from a risk mgmt perspective by the way, is that we just don't know what might happen, but that there's a fairly big downside. Hence why, particularly given the inertia I referred to previously, I tend to favour doing something proactive now rather than waiting until we have absolutely incontrovertible evidence one way or the other.

My point is that if positive feedbacks had predominated in Earth history ( rather than the measured record ) we would either have a runaway greenhouse or be locked in ice.I do believe that the whole planet was once covered in ice ( BBC geology programme about 2 years ago I think), and it is postulated that it was volcanic activity that broke the deadlock ( through pumping out greenhouse gases).

I do agree that a precautionary approach is preferable, but with minimal harm to the global economy preferably.More investment in cleaner energy sources and research into new technologies are ,I believe, very worthwhile and in themselves stimulate the economy.

Edited by Mr Sleet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
My point is that if positive feedbacks had predominated in Earth history ( rather than the measured record ) we would either have a runaway greenhouse or be locked in ice.I do believe that the whole planet was once covered in ice ( BBC geology programme about 2 years ago I think), and it is postulated that it was volcanic activity that broke the deadlock ( through pumping out greenhouse gases).

I do agree that a precautionary approach is preferable, but with minimal harm to the global economy preferably.More investment in cleaner energy sources and research into new technologies are ,I believe, very worthwhile and in themselves stimulate the economy.

There's no doubt that across all of history the global system has periodically rebased itself either upwards or downwards, and between times has been quasi-stationary - oscillating within reasonably tight bounds. As the earth is a closed system over the short-medium term there's no surprise in this. Periodically some kind of forcing occurs, hitherto presumably entirely natural as opposed to man-made, to drive re-equilibration. Outside of, and besides this, there are always feedbacks positive and negative, it's just that most of the time they are, for most intents and purposes, in balance. As you say, otherwise we would have runaway warming or cooling.

Apart from a hot August [sic], I can't see any evidence of increasing temperatures this year.

I would say that this is more evidence of the heat-up having peaked a couple of years ago, but that sort of thing tends to get me in trouble!

Unfortunately Noggin, the one record breakingly warm month this year is one more than any record breakingly cold months we've had. I think it's a tad too soon to be sure that any heating trend has yet stopped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Thame, Oxfordshire
  • Location: Thame, Oxfordshire
As PTFD suggests, in theory yes, in practice - possibly not at present. I agree with Essan's comment, the point being that it's not timebound, but I disagree with the "all we need is cold nights" theory. Warmer nights do disproportionatley account for the change in average winter temperature over the last thirty years, but they do not account for it all.

The attached plot explains my position.

post-364-1156180696_thumb.jpg

You could quite easily draw two trend lines through the data. The first, and most pertinent, would be through the various minima. This has a very scary good fit, suggesting that the minimum for a winter month in the even larger teapot is only around 3.5C. The gradient of this line is about 1C/7 years, or about 1C per 12 if you take 62/3 as a complete freak. Scary!

The second is the general trend line: applying a regression would give a gradient of about 2C across the period, so that's just shy of 1C / 20 years. A similar line for the max temperatures would yield around 1C across the whole, though it is possible to argue for a more or less flat line starting with the outlier in 1961. What is clear is the increasing cluster of months closer to this line. Finally, parallel to, but below, the main regression line I've drawn the line for the 95% confidence; this is the line outside which there should be a 20% chance (approximately) of an individual month falling. This series has 180 months in it, and 6 do indeed fall below this line, though none since 1987, that's getting on for 80 winter months, now well nudging the point of statistical significance (i.e. the absence of a cold month as defined is not "by chance", but likely indicative of underlying trend, i.e. warming).

All of this stacks up nicely with theory. It is easier to get a reduction in winter cold than it is to dramatically increasing upside warmth. The former requires a set of circumstances that introduce cold air; making these less prevalent, and / or a change in the actual ambient characteristic of the air mass would shove minima upwards. At the top end the limits are more bounded by incoming energy. There is a theoretical limit to the maximum temperature in a winter month and normal volatility is such that we are usually far closer to this threshold than we are to the upper limits for high minimum temperatures. It could be argued, therefore, that increases in the trend of the maximum are actually a good indicator of background warming and the regression line of about 1.5C across this period is roughly consistent with most current claims.

In summary, therfore: it's very unlikely that we will see another 1C winter month for quite some time, and certainly until we see the whole system start to cool again. A 1C month now is about as likely as a -1C month was thirty or so years ago, and perhaps less likely even than that given the long period since a month fell below the 95% tail. On the basis of my analysis, the statistical minimum is now around 2C, a degree of coldness c.f. the current norm which has been matched four times in this data series. The however, is that we seem to have far less volatility now, making this sort of cold outlier less likely than reference simply to the background warming would suggest.

Daniel,

Are you predisposed to arguing for cold because you get excited by the snow, or do you actually believe this "science"? I certainly don't see how a month that is likley to turn out around average (CET) can justifiably be called "one of the coldest of recent times". I can't remember a time when you weren't spending summer / autumn predicting the mummy, daddy, grandfather and in-laws of all winters to come.

An interesting analysis SF. Regarding the minima , I would tend to discount the two or three outliers early on in the negative zone, and say with more confidence that since 85 the minima have been climbing, indisputably.This ties in rather well if I remember correctly with the positive average NAO's which we started experiencing at that time. As you may gather I'm not convinced this is GW at work, more synoptics which on the evidence of the last two winters seems to be reverting to a more blocked pattern despite the global warming trend continuing (allegedly)

I always rememember thinking throughout the 90's - will I ever see a scandinavian winter high again ? Along with a colleague who likes winter ice skating in Scandinavia who hung up his skates in exasperation a few years ago. It was just a succession of westerlies and Bartlett type conditions- until the last two years.

Edited by Mr Sleet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
An interesting analysis SF. Regarding the minima , I would tend to discount the two or three outliers early on in the negative zone, and say with more confidence that since 85 the minima have been climbing, indisputably.This ties in rather well if I remember correctly with the positive average NAO's which we started experiencing at that time. As you may gather I'm not convinced this is GW at work, more synoptics which on the evidence of the last two winters seems to be reverting to a more blocked pattern despite the global warming trend continuing (allegedly)

I always rememember thinking throughout the 90's - will I ever see a scandinavian winter high again ? Along with a colleague who likes winter ice skating in Scandinavia who hung up his skates in exasperation a few years ago. It was just a succession of westerlies and Bartlett type conditions- until the last two years.

There's possibly something in that, but we can't escape the fact that when we do get the synoptics the outturn is rarely as cold as it would have been 20-30 years ago. If the climate globally has warmed then there's argument for the whole system having been rebased upwards. In practice, it's still to early to know for sure, but outcomes over the next 2-3 winters - when some of those who watch patterns are expecting a colder run - will be significant in allowing us to firm up opinons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Thame, Oxfordshire
  • Location: Thame, Oxfordshire
There's possibly something in that, but we can't escape the fact that when we do get the synoptics the outturn is rarely as cold as it would have been 20-30 years ago. If the climate globally has warmed then there's argument for the whole system having been rebased upwards. In practice, it's still to early to know for sure, but outcomes over the next 2-3 winters - when some of those who watch patterns are expecting a colder run - will be significant in allowing us to firm up opinons.

Fair point. I'd like to see how things pan out over at least the next 5 winters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: South of Glasgow 55.778, -4.086, 86m
  • Location: South of Glasgow 55.778, -4.086, 86m

Well you won’t have to wait. There are those in here who can, and will, tell you exactly what’s around the corner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Doncaster 50 m asl
  • Location: Doncaster 50 m asl
Well you won’t have to wait. There are those in here who can, and will, tell you exactly what’s around the corner.

And likelise there are those who will see any cooling as an imminent sign of an ice age and those who will say that any cooling doesn't discredit continual warming!

I feel surrounded by extremists!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
And likelise there are those who will see any cooling as an imminent sign of an ice age and those who will say that any cooling doesn't discredit continual warming!

I feel surrounded by extremists!

Don't tell me you're stood between Daniel and PP in the queue for the checkout...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-29 07:13:16 Valid: 29/03/2024 0600 - 30/03/2024 0600 THUNDERSTORM WATCH - FRI 29 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    Difficult travel conditions as the Easter break begins

    Low Nelson is throwing wind and rain at the UK before it impacts mainland Spain at Easter. Wild condtions in the English Channel, and more rain and lightning here on Thursday. Read the full update here

    Netweather forecasts
    Netweather forecasts
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-28 09:16:06 Valid: 28/03/2024 0800 - 29/03/2024 0600 SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WATCH - THURS 28 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather
×
×
  • Create New...